university professor about genetically modified foods and the laws that some state legislators are considering when it comes to labeling the foods for consumers. ♪ president obama and secretary of state john kerry will address issues concerning the middle east at the brookings institution. look to c-span for information. journal andeet others say patty murray wants to include an extension of unemployment benefits in the deal being hashed out by republican conferees. unemployment now at seven percent. jobs were over 200,000 created in november.

the decline of optimism, some economists say. we want to get your thoughts on the unemployment number and if you are optimistic about the job market. if you are under 30 -- reach out to us on social media, @cspanwj is how you do that on twitter. journal@c-span.org is our email. to read you the headline from "the pittsburgh post-gazette post quote -- -- post-gazette" -- optimism is the subject of

today's opinion pages of "the wall street journal:."

again, your thoughts on the economy, especially in light of these new numbers, with the federal unemployment rate at seven percent. in.ere is how you can call we divided the lines differently. if you are under 30 -- it is discussions about the economy that takeover the papers today, especially in light of these new numbers. here is the editorial page of "the new york times." they have a different take --

we start this morning in jacksonville florida. angel is up. good morning, what do you think about the economy in light of these current numbers? good morning.

first of all, thank you so much for taking my call. go ahead, you're on. caller: there is still a selection process that is very difficult for many people. thethe reason is simple, young people are being selected -- the selection very picky.ery, degrees and i can't find a job in jacksonville, florida. some cities are picking up quickly, some aren't. keep are you going to

looking for work or have you given up? caller: i will keep looking. fairs, i apply for work every day. i search for jobs every day, update my resume. i talk to all those people that i am supposed to talk to. i even tried to get back to school. it is difficult for some people. ,ost: three lines this morning for under 30, 31 to age 50, and 51 and over. our next caller -- caller: i spend a lot of time intel has see helping people for my business fraternity and different organizations looking for jobs, especially coming out

of college or even if you are a currently in college. tallahassee is growing really quickly. we added a lot of different jobs here. -- ild say the only issue am definitely very optimistic about the job market. jobsnk there are a lot of out there, especially if you spend a lot of time looking at them and filtering through them. especially like the universities. i think the issue that we are having is so many of these jobs and 1010ng for five years experience or they will exchange out for education, for a couple of the years. a lot of people coming out of college may have part-time jobs elsewhere or going through a difficult economic time with the job market that it has recently been, how do we have the ability to get that experience?

a lot of young people are looking for jobs to be able to get that experience and learn obvious job training that maybe they are not getting through their college career. what is your college background and are you still paying off college loans? caller: i am. i just finished my masters degree. i am currently employed at i has been in the job market, i have been in the professionals setting since i was 16 years old. i spent a lot of time building that experience, maybe not making as much as other people. if i am thankful i have had that ability to get that experience. i am finding a lot of young people participate in clubs and organizations, whether or not they are getting paid or getting whatever they can to get a tiny bit of experience on their resume. aret of companies out there looking for 5, 10, 10 years --

20 years experience. host: here's danielle next. caller: good morning. i am so excited i finally got through. i am in the second category. i am not the least bit optimistic about the jobs market. the lady you were speaking i a couple of calls earlier, am a multiple college degree holder. beene been an up -- i have unemployed for three and a half years. i am also thinking that the statistics the labor department puts out every month is not the least bit accurate. i'm thinking they should doubled long-term unemployed.

jobs had towho have relocate from state its vegans from state to state. the people most of with my job were outsourced and andlly the company was sold 90% of us are still unemployed to this day. i was four years ago. thoughts off of twitter this morning. kevin from maine in that middle category, 31 to 50, hello. caller: good morning. iwould just like to say that think the job market is improving. i think the president has done everything he said he is going

to do and did not even as much as that he at. over we president took were learned -- we were losing -- i cannot remember how much it was, $800,000 per month. years the president has turned this country, not totally around, but the country is swinging around to the positive. there is more money, more people are going to work, things are looking up. i will never forget something he , he said he took over our economy is not going to turn around on the time. it is going to be like the titanic. a long-termto be but eventually things are going to get better. read you a line

from "the washington post" this morning -- what you think about the government if signs are pointing that the economy is getting better? caller: he said something about the government was slowing the economy? i don't know how you would measure that. how do you measure that?

people said the government stimulus did not do anything, at least everyone said that. a certain percentage said the government stimulus was a waste and did not do anything, just added to the debt. how do we know? you cannot measure that. how does mark zandi come up with these scientific facts to prove that what he is saying is right or wrong? i have no idea. from what i see, things are getting better. i wish that people had more money in their pockets. i am a proponent of raising the minimum wage. host: this is william, in the category of 51 and over. how are you? i am concerned, my

social security went of $100 per month. i am a retired schoolteacher and i have a bachelors degree, masters degree, and an education specialist degree. old and i am thinking about going back to the classroom. what are you thinking about going back for? overr: i was a teacher for 40 years. i miss it. but also the money. that is william from georgia. a couple of other breakdowns from the report that was released today.

it is a seven percent unemployment rate, a new number according to the bureau of labour statistics. we are asking your thoughts on the economy and if this suggests optimism, at least to you, about the economy. if you are under 30 -- up next is mike from sun city california. i put this all on barack obama. it is his philip -- it is his philosophy in terms of growing government is causing all this anguish.

this is coupled with obamacare, which is a total nightmare. i premium has gone up. this is ridiculous. what is usually created is the new underclass, the educated poor. the man does not care about free enterprise. wants government in charge of everything. it is a different philosophy than a republican would have. that if romney were elected, we would be coming out of this by now. with all this government regulation and the government goes -- the government knows best and comes first, as sky has never worked hard. arrogant,most polarizing, racist president we have ever had. the only people making excuses for him are the morally weak and politically correct liberal white apologists and the plaque

-- and the black racists in the name of political correctness. everyone else is realistic enough to see the frog has dissipated and this guy is a total fraud. he will go down as one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. he does not care about the pain the americans are going through. >> joe from new york, good morning. caller: good morning. thank bush.to he was right 10 years ago when he said increasing domestic oil wouldtion in north dakota stimulate and create jobs. i remember senator kerry was opposed to that. now it and it up being right because every million barrels we produce here, we generate $60 billion per year in revenues from that. i would say the republicans are right on the energy policy. >> what the thing about the

new unemployment numbers? in -- it addsk it to the increase in our energy production. it is just going to come around and nourished the economy. it sounds good and i hope it will go down in the future. optimistic about the job market overall? take away the energy part about it. caller: yes, i am. i am hoping us liberals will start driving smaller and low maintenance automobiles. there are people driving super rules that are high maintenance. if these people would drive low maintenance cars they would have more disposable income to cover their contraceptive coverage or health care, and their pension. i am a liberal democrat that us liberals have to start doing our suffering. i don't know why it will go to a liberal fundraiser.

i never see my liberal friends driving small fuel efficient cars. they are still driving the subarus, volvos, minivans, and all that. if you are producing 16 million cars, you better be producing more and more oil. we brag about the increase in house production and yet we do not want to increase our to mystic oil production. ist: the unemployment rate at seven percent. we are asking about your optimism. the lines will be on your screen. pick the one that best represents you. we take a look at tax rates. it is congress that appears to allow a certain batch of temporary tax breaks to last at the end of 2013.

ray from oklahoma city oklahoma, you are up next. are you there? good morning, you are on. i was calling about -- our man is going to make mistakes. the problem with the world, it does not have anything to do with obama. we have taken god out of everything he is doing. the next thing, minimum wage. i talked to a lot of people atut minimum wage at 7:25 -- $7.25 an hour. people say if you raise minimum wage, the influence will go up. everything else is already going up except minimum wage.

years taken almost four to get it to seven dollars $.25. i am 61 years old, i am retired, and i have four kids. i have kids working for memo wage. they got student loans to pay back. journal"ll street talking about unemployment benefits in several stories, set to expire on september 28. several democrats are pushing for a vote to extend the benefits. house democrats propose renewing the program for $25 billion but have no way to offset the costs. the senate budget committee

chairman were pushing for budget -- president obama using his weekly address to talk about unemployment benefits and their extension. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> that's more than 8 million jobs in the last 45 months. the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level in 45 years. we need to do everything we can to help his this is create more jobs.

the whole we are still taking outof is -- still digging of means there are millions of americans still out of work. he have to look for the americans still working hard to get jobs. at is why we offer temporary unemployment insurance. when they get that job, they can bounce back more quickly. unemployment insurance is one of the most effective ways there is to boost the economy. the evidence shows unemployment insurance does not stop people from trying to find work. we are asking a you about your optimism in light of the new unemployment rate. alexander from our bunny, new -- from alimony, new york. y, new york.n

ofler: i think what a lot people are not factoring in is when obamacare was implemented, i see all my friends in retail -- they put everybody to part time and they take on a lot of part-time workers so they do not have a lot of people on full- time to meet the obamacare requirements. i think that probably had a big effect. a lot of people i looked at, or everybody i know who was my age, still works. they cannot afford to look on their -- to live on their own. i think the economy is pretty bleak in upstate new york, for the short term at least. -- the jobhop numbers --

writing -- stephen from massachusetts, good morning. problem --ave a everything starts from the politicians. politicians want illegals in here. they want them all to vote

because they are going to get reelected. the problem i have is 10 years job, the besta job i have had in my entire life. to fire me. i fought it and come to find out when i was only making eight dollars an hour and working 50 hours a week, two people they papers, andals, no getting paid under the table. i have nothing against illegal immigrants. but what i think the country --uld do is just let people wherever they from, as long as they are citizens -- if the illegals want to work, let them get citizenship. stopoliticians have to letting this go because it is going to end up happening like a lot of people say, all part-time

jobs. the city i live in? all democrats. every single one of them is a democrat. you cannot walk down the street or go into a store without seeing an immigrant. i lived here for 25 years. it used to be beautiful 20 years ago. the crime rate is skyrocketing. pictures of -- he had been held by north korean officials for a time. theas today they freed veteran of the korean war after a weeklong detention, ending the -- after he oversaw a group of north koreans --

gloria in chicago, good morning. good morning. i am in the 55 and older group. i am so happy the economy is getting better.

i have a friend with a full-time and part-time job. there are jobs out here. if the people are so upset and they don't think it is getting thebetter -- you know how republicans college, jobs, jobs, -- they should be upset. what if they work with the president and bring the bill to the floor? there would be a lot of people working. don't be upset at the president. the president and the democrats are making this economy move forward. from fort washington, maryland. i am very 100%

percentage --the seven percent. i would like to see it at two percent. my comment is for the caller, six colors ago. how can president obama be a racist when he is trying to provide health care to every american regardless of what ethnicity they are. back to the economy, you said you are optimistic. specifically, why? caller: it is getting better. buts not 100% better it is getting better. the former president, bush, made this economy terrible. now that things are getting better, it is just taking time. the republicans just keep blocking everything obama puts out there.

if the republicans learn how to work with the president, maybe things can move much faster. was: do you think it because of government intervention that the economy is getting better you go -- better yet go -- better? republicans learn how to work with the president, they be things will get done faster. there would be faster growth in the economy. host: angela in georgia. from the 31 toso 50 category. deep in southwest georgia. agomember about 15 years when president george w. bush encouraged companies to thin work overseas and to emphasize

we should have a service economy. college graduate, i have a degree in certification. i am the mother of eight kids. they are 24 to 11 years old. i have been observing what has been going on in our country for years. feelof the politicians people will then shall he forgets when one politician has versus to put in place what the other parties are doing. . have always noticed a republicans have not really done anything to encourage job growth.

there is a debt in america. when we encourage job growth people have more money and are able to put more to the economy. host: this is rich from ohio. it seems like we are having problems with flyers laying around with these numbers. the number of immigrants, illegal and legal, is almost 200,000 per month. unemployment -- those numbers eventually just drop off the sheet. the third thing is money around election times, these numbers get screwed around.

we should really investigate that pretty thoroughly. program isewsmakers tomorrow at 10:00 and on the program is representative adam smith. he is the ranking member of the armed services committee, talking about issues related to the military. one of the topics addressed was the sequester and what kind of deal the democrats may except on it. -- may accept on it. [video clip] at a trillioning dollar budget. that is a bit over what sequester would be. it would give defense more money than was anticipated. defense would suffer some sequester. this deal does not involve extending unemployment insurance and new revenue. yourwondering if you in caucus over there, whether or not you would be willing to support such a heel for defense,

even if it did not include revenue, even if it did not include money for extending unemployment insurance. >> is not an insignificant increase because the sequestration levels for all discretionary is 957 billion. if you get it up to trillion -- 43 million that is a increase -- 43 billion increase. while it is not exactly something i would want, it is certainly better than living under government shutdowns in acr. presented adamor smith on our newsmakers program tomorrow at 10:00 and 6:00. you can also see it on our website. the secretary of state john kerry is speaking this afternoon in washington dc at the brookings institution, talking about issues related to the middle east.

you can see that live today at four clock. to addressbama set the same crowd earlier in the afternoon. go to our website for more information and how you can see that. this tweet from sea of tranquility reflects what adam smith was talking about anyway. he says jobs numbers in the economy looks good. talking street journal a little bit about the sidebar stories that go along with these cautions about the economy, saying that manufacturers only added 76,000 jobs. nicholas is from flemington, new

jersey. he is on our line for 30 years old and under. good morning. i wanted to reiterate what one of the last callers have seen ah is we major decline in manufacturing jobs and have switched to a service economy, which generally provides a lot of part-time and low-wage jobs in obviously that is due to a lot of outsourcing by a lot of the bigger companies. a used to do the manufacturing here. i also wanted to reiterate that since the late 70s we have seen wages become stagnant relative

to what you can purchase along with your wages. i just want to say that does not reflect the productivity that the american worker has been providing to the employers in this country. in other words, we have record profits in this country through that time. reason the wages have remained the same. whatld like to also state the big countries seem to have done with those profits is -- turn around and led them to the workers instead of giving a wage increase. 31,000 jobs added to the transportation and warehouse

committees, 28,000 health care and 27,000 two manufacturing. at a decrease of 7001 it comes to jobs at the federal government. cleveland, ohio, you are up next. we do positive action here in ohio. we give scholarships. a program called program apprenticeships for success. the students are between 13 and 17. we put them and god over the settlement. go for a jobw to interview, dress for success, rob a resume. -- write a resume. we have to be positive. we can put people to work but putting them to training programs at any age and making sure the businesses cooperate.

they get an award and then we have -- we have to be optimistic. the training programs we have to have, we need to bring apprentices back to the united states, training people for jobs so they can achieve. we cannot think negative. host: this is patty from michigan. caller: i am not really optimistic about the job situation. it has been very difficult. that some of the larger corporations are a part of the problem. we have a very large corporation base here in harvard. maneuveredctually and done things to actually chase small businesses out of

the city and prevent new ones .rom coming in our governor is another obstacle. . governor schneider turned it into horror. a point an them to emergency manager to a city and it nullifies the voice of any elected officials. pinpointingbe african-american cities. once these emergency managers affluentn place, the

-- the elected officials will no longer have a voice. "the wall street journal" adding -- one more call from vanderbilt texas. george.this is we actually do need an apprenticeship program.

mercedes-benz offered one in 2010 and it is working good over there in germany. that is what we need to bring down here, more apprenticeships, something like that. there are lots of opportunity down here, considering that even though we had immigrant in fluctuation, those things are not excuses. we need to be entrepreneurs out here. we need to give small businesses the opportunity. credit and give them small business credit. that is what i need to see. that is the last call we will take on that topic. we will change gears for the next topic and talk about iran and other countries. robert zarate joins us.

later on we look at those who sit on state supreme court. weekend long, we are featuring the history and literary theme of the ohio his -- of the ohio city of quarter lane. all of our program featuring authors from the city, including an interview with the the "for dummies" series of books. here is a clip of him react him and hisp of reaction to the industry. [video clip] they originally planned on publishing one book and even then there was some reluctance he with the title. when the owner found out he said, you cannot offend the reader, cancel that book. unfortunately -- well, fortunately -- 5000 copies came off the press. it wasl -- originally

going to be 7500. they stopped at 5000. they thought they would shove it on the marketplace and this will all go away. at the time not even all the bookstores wanted to have it. waldenbooks said, we do not want to insult our reader. even with just 5000 copies out there, and this is before the ,nternet and before bookstores they came in and it was gone. they just sought and said, that is for me. to the publisher's credit, they printed up another 5000 copies. the bookstores just wanted the book. waldenbooks was just tired of sending people across the mall. it builds on that. it was completely word-of-mouth. >> things escalate so quickly.

that can seem so loving and can turn in slip and seem out of control -- this is one of those days. it ended with adam packing to leave. i asked what the deal was and he said i am just going to take it to sell it. on top of all the other pressures they had no money. she just held the gun and he came in the room with a shotgun and really try to jam it at her. she would pull the trigger and kill him. -- describe in the book >> only half the story. follows thegoal battalion's second infantry. tonight at 8:00 on c-span's q

and a. >> "washington journal" continues to -- continues. host: welcome. run, next week reuters is reporting that iran and the other nations involved in the short term deal are set to talk about details. first of all, your concerns about the detail overall. the united states and other powers arm beating to talk about the details and the devils of this plan. is that it is a deal we could have done a lot better. under that deal, the united states is starting to dismantle international sanctions against iran. on the other hand, iran is not setting a single attribute and

is not starting to dismantle the so-called heavywater reactor at former obama a administration official called a plutonium bomb factory. united states and other countries are relieving sanctions and freeing up anywhere from $7 billion to as much as $20 billion in financial ofets as well as exports petrochemicals, auto industry parts, and other things. it is not clear the sort of concession we got from iran is worth that money yet. this is why you're seeing senators like robert menendez and mark kirk from illinois move potentially as early as next week to try to table sanctions that iflegislation there is no real movement on the program in terms of really

constraining it, sanctions may kick in. >> do you think the senate leadership will bring those? the reason menendez and kirk and other members -- particularly those two members -- are negotiating is because they're coming up with an approach amid this geneva plan that is workable and is not completely undercut it that creates the right pressure for iran to really negotiate in good faith toward any final agreement. it is not clear when the start date is. it was introduced in late november. the united states and other countries are going to vienna to actually hash out the details. one of the details includes how the i a would do intrusive inspections. another issue is what is the start date?

it is not clear when this exactly starts. we will show you some of the details of the plan that was released. as far as the transparency side, how do we know exactly whether -- what they are producing as far as uranium is concerned? the iaea is sort of the nuclear iris. declare theuired to nuclear its real's as well as related nuclear activities and equipment. the whole reason we have this crisis for two decades, iran failed to declare a host of nuclear activities and nuclear dislike we have to compare the correctness and completeness -- the iaea is charged with completeness and correctness of the declarations.

can confirm the correctness of those declarations, it cannot confirm that it has a complete picture thataq and cannot conclude iran's nuclear activities are exclusively peaceful. question as to what additional inspections there are, they are slightly more intrusive at the richmond facilities. the mountain facility was controlled by the revolutionary guard corps. they still do not have the authorities. they have been given unfettered immediate access so iran can be confirmed it is not hiding any nuclear activities. a enrichmenterated center fusions. they hit their nuclear program for about two decades. this is kind of why a lot of

people are really concerned about this deal. hero the numbers -- -- here are the numbers -- you can send us a tweet or e- mail. what should confessions look like? that needs to start dismantling its nuclear weapons making capability. the number of centrifuges they have in they have 19,000 installed centrifuges. when the obama administration started, they had roughly 3000 5000 centrifuges installed. -- five percent enriched uranium which is 7/10 the way of weapons grade uranium. of roughly 1000 kilograms of that.

today they have roughly 7000 kilograms, 3.5%. 20%op of that there is enriched uranium, which is counterintuitive the 9/10 of the way to weapons grade uranium. percentage point is easier than the last. they get easier the higher rep you go. the geneva plan tries to catch the material. frankly i think the material should have been rolled up -- rolled back. it should have shifted to a , like turkey, so that for the duration of the negotiations that stuff is out of iran's hand. it was a plutonium bomb factory that bob i torn called -- in a speech dismantle. -- einhorn called it.

our mission is to promote u.s. leadership and engagement in matters of security internationally, prosperity, human rights, and democracy. , byo that in multiple ways educating and engaging the policymakers,l as and also in the more private setting through our educational briefings, to really deal with these issues. our first call is entry on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my question. policy -- irding had a comment i first wanted to make. has provenn sense that building seven was brought

down with explosives on 9/11 -- this is so much the basis of our why shouldicy -- american citizens take government officials who nor this reality when they pushed their foreign-policy agendas based on this. guest: thank you for your question and i disagree with your premise, which is that the world trade center was an inside job with explosives. there are the studies out there and it is pretty clear that the -- those buildings were attacked by planes that were hijacked by al qaeda operatives. i know there is a continuing conspiracy theory community out there that think this was some sort of nefarious scheme to -- it is hard to take of things

seriously. i know you may genuinely believe it but i encourage you to go out there and engage in debates. i don't think the conspiracy theory holds any water. host: maurice from ohio, democrat's line. i have a question about -- let's sayear tomorrow they have a nuclear bomb. whatd of want to know would be the consequence, what the world would do about it as compared to pakistan having a nuclear bone, india having a nuclear bomb. what will the u.s. or the rest of the world do if iran says they have a nuclear bomb today? that is an interesting hypothetical.

i think there is a decent amount of confidence that iran has not completed a nuclear explosive device. the general belief is that there iranill time to prevent getting a nuclear explosive device. i think that is part of the reason that those who are constructive critics of diplomacy and pressure on iran, what a deal in which iran meets the standards of the u.s. security council's, stops enrichment and any research on andprocessing of plutonium, really offer unfettered and immediate axis of the international inspectors can really confirm there are no hidden undeclared activities. a huge problem. obviously countries like israel and saudi arabia are deeply concerned about iran's noncompliant nuclear activities, which are moving towards nuclear

weapons making. in a lot of the arab world, it is not that it is not popular to talk about israel. leaked seen officials stories about how they are having talks with israel about planning for potential military action. how goes to show just greatly concerned nations are in the region about iran's nuclear activities and why the obama administration in any final deal -- really needs to live up to the un security council officials. provide zero enrichment, zero processing, and unfettered immediate access for inspectors to the entire nuclear program. host: the defense secretary robert line --

guest: i think hagel is doing a lot of damage control, especially in gulf states. secretary kerry was in israel the last two days to have consultations. ready countries are worried about iran's ballistic antimissile efforts. iss is why the united states building up a ground-based midcourse defense of, a sickly a missile defense system to protect the united states against missile threats from both iran and north korea. allies, our friends, and partners in the middle east currently have these things and want them -- and one more them

or do not have them and want them. is controversial that our allies and partners to feel more assured. it is an open question as to jim from california, good morning, you are on. caller: the zionist think tax that -- think tank that put us into iran, and we got support for israel -- guest: jim, thank you for your comment. i am a former u.s. congressional staffer. i take personal offense that i put any foreign country interest over u.s. interest. it is easy to smear someone. i am trying to engage people on the issues. i encourage you to call back at some point and ask a substantial question, but thank you for your call. you are asked what is the

motivation for france, russia, and china to support this deal? guest: they have different motivations. russia would like to see some restraint of the iranian missile threat because it provides them the opportunity to argue that the u.s. does not need to continue with the u.s. missile defense operation with europe. the npt in ad 1992 and has taken a strong view against nuclear nonproliferation, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons making abilities. foreign ministry has a very active nuclear exporting factor. but a lot of people there really want to stop the threat of the bomb. i think you saw the french foreign minister was pushing very hard to make sure that the deal in geneva struck a plan. i think he won a long way in making it a long way, but the geneva plan could have made it better. host: is oil from iran part of

the interest? guest: the issue that a lot of countries would like to buy iranian oil, and there are a lot of countries, especially the consumers would like to see even one of these sanctions on iranian oil. the u.s. ally, japan, has shut nuclear of their reactors, so they are extremely dependent upon a middle eastern oil. they would love to buy u.s. shale oil and natural gas, but we're not quite there. we're moving toward exporting that, but a lot of countries would like to be able to buy oil. but they are respecting current u.s. sanctions. they cut severely the amount of oil they buy from iran. this supports those who actually do by iranian oil at unrestrained levels such as china to actually be greedy and argue for lower prices for their oil. this is how iran has lost money because they're having to sell oil below market rises to find buyers.

i think that a lot of oil companies are beginning to the options of resuming business in iran, but a lot of members in the senate have worn these oil companies not get to far ahead of the name because it -- the game because it is still tentative. president obama claims he wants to keep the core sanctions on iran's oral, energy, -- oil, energy, financial sector in place until there is a real copperhead the agreement. at issue is -- sanctions are like a brick wall, and hopefully top ofjust taking the breaks off. with a big break from the foundation, the wall of sanctions could crumble. host: next call, atlanta, georgia, sean, republican line. caller: do you believe that eventually iran will get a bomb? guest: thank you for your question. prettyy is that -- it is

clear that iran has the capability to make a nuclear weapon, based on its declared capabilities. it could do it anywhere from six weeks to two months. now, what complicates things is that if it has undeclared capabilities, for example a hidden enrichment facility. . 2009, weind, and found that iran had built a facility inside a mountain. i think the worry is that iran is building up a latent capability at a minimum, the slaton capability that is some point in the future, it could -- this latent capability that and support in the future he could use.e to those in the think tank community are pushing to make sure that whatever our diplomatic and pressure approaches are, that they really focus like a laser not to

stopping iran from getting a nuclear weapon or device, but stopping iran from getting in growing its rapid nuclear weapons-making capability. host: if you are also asked -- if we stop nations from producing nukes, can we buy them -- can they buy them? guest: probably not. there have been persistent rumors in the news for years that saudi arabia might try to nuclear weapon from pakistan" or allow pakistan pakistaniy place nuclear forces on saudi territory. in be the same if the u.s. forces in europe during the cold war. we had to make sure we do not get to that point because the more states having nuclear weapon rapid capability to have a bomb or actually have a bomb, especially in the middle east,

if you throw in a more nuclear , what is already volatile turned into a nuclear powder cake. host: brookline, massachusetts, doug. anytimewhy is it that the subject of iran comes up, c- span sends a member of the form policy or the washington institute for the policy, all these inspired thing takes out what we have to do is look up the board of directors only follow -- foreign-policy initiatives, and we find people like eric edelman, william kristol, for cry say, c-span, let's have a little would have objectivity. go ahead with your question or comment for our guest. whyer: yeah, i am wondering c-span always has people on from

organizations like the foreign policy -- and iwe got that far, said we have a variety of perspectives on this topic, so -- caller: i don't think you do. guest: nyack was on right after the deal, so there are difference perspectives on season. i disagree with him on a lot of issues, but season has given him just as much -- c-span has given him just as much time to talk and other supporters as opposed to iran. so i think you're complaint is friendly without -- frankly without. host: we have another caller. caller: i just want to know, why is it that when we went into iraq, before we went to iraq, they claimed that they had weapons of mass destruction, and then come to find out in the end, they had no capability of that or that they did not find any is what i mean to say.

and then now, we want to go to iran. i just want to understand simply -- what is the reason for is going there yo? guest: thank you for your question appeared to be clear, no one seriously isn't suggesting that we do any ground invasion à la iraq of iran. what we have is a debate of u.s. policy over the balance between diplomacy and pressure on iran to try to persuade it to run back its capabilities to make a nuclear weapon on short notice. that i demonstrable fact run has things like -- iran has things like centrifuges. the fact that iran has stockpiles of enrich uranium, one part of its stockpile, 3.5% 7/10 of the way to weapons grade uranium. 9/10 of the way toward weapons grade uranium.

with a nuclear sort of damocles. it is hanging and it could drop. my organization and others out there are trying to engage with foreign governments to try to get a constructive soup -- discussion along the lines of n.e you and security -- u. security council resolutions. host: here is john from new york, republican line. caller: i would like to ask the guests about u.s. foreign-policy posture all over the world. isseems that the u.s. leaving parts of the world to iner actors such as russia the middle east, and our allies around the world have less and u.s. to backth them up in a situation where they get in trouble with one of these other actors like china is

missing in defense identification zone that they're setting up your to south korea and japan, for instance, had their airlines say that we will .ot respect that zone the u.s. told airlines to the u.s. allzone over the world where they back down, now they are backing down in china, and putin is trying to .e-institute the soviet union all over the world the u.s. is backing down in every situation. can you explain that please? guest: john, thank you for your question. i will talk about two things. i will talk about syria and then china. you raise to two important points. over the last year or so with syria, the assad regime has used -- has usedeapons

chemical weapons repeatedly, most recently august 25, killing many people. the u.s. medially responded not with invasion but with standoff strikes to signal that this is on example president obama decided to move for authorization of military force, delay the debate over it. kind of made a halfhearted case about appeared a lot of folks thought he really did not want to do this. there is still a belief that president obama just does not want to get involved in this area period, which is fine. but the problem is if you draw a red line very publicly that the use of chemical weapons was unacceptable and when changes calculus -- now, where we are today, as you know, there is a so-called framework to get rid weapons. chemical my biggest from with that framework as it is not there with the immediate threat anytime soon which is weapon eyes, -- weaponized, battlefield ready ammunition.

the good folks at the opcw, the international inspectors for chemical weapons, they implement the chemical weapons convention, they operationally destroy, they just -- they render it inoperable, things like mixing production agreement, filling equipment for chemical munitions. the fact of the matter is that there are still a lot of them a gold munitions, weaponized munitions on the ground here the timely for destroying the things in the middle of 2014 is a lot willople do not think they be able to meet the timeline. the current plan is that foreign countries will have to use their ships to take these chemical weapons, the weaponized munitions, move them to a third country port where then a they use takes a, and

a hydrolysis machine to get rid of these, destroy them at sea, and dump some of the less toxic stuff into the ocean and to get rid of the more toxic byproducts elsewhere. they're supposed to get rid of the entire chemical weapons program by the middle of 2014. two issues -- the timeline. madethe assad regime has that where each of its chemical weapons program. questions, aot of lot of devils in the detail of this framework. your second point about china, and i will make this point really quick, pedro. anna has declared identification zone. part of that zone extends over the islands of japan, which the as in china, are debating over who owns it. i was in japan a couple of weeks ago. i got to meet with folks from

the government and the japanese parliament, as well as going to okinawa and visit some of the military facilities out there. the u.s. is positioned on these so-called go islands -- on these islands, and they fall under the u.s.-japan treaty because japan has demonstrated control over the senkaku islands. what the u.s. is trying to do is to argue that japan has administrative control over the airspace and those islands. on the one hand, president obama ordered the military to fly b-52 bombers, they were arty planning to do that, but they've -- but he went out -- he went ahead with it to signify that they do not recognize it. unlike japan and the republic of south korea, the obama administration has had a different position in terms of civilian airliners going

over that. the problem with the air defenses i'm owes for beyond normal practice. civilianwhen a airliner goes over in the air zone, they'll have to collaborate with it, and if it's present if they are landing there. if you are landing, china says you have to come through. -- agreelly a group with japan and the republican korea that china needs to roll back the air defense bill over the east china sea. host: how would you grade or rate century carry on how he is administering it -- secretary kerry on how he is administering it? of caveats --e i'm always uncomfortable with grades. any secretary of state will enjoy successes and failures. if i have to break him i will do it in two ways. first, secretary kerry's performance, putting aside the

prisons of policy, that the president has asked to do push forward, secretaries. has been -- secretary kerry has been very active. he is traveled almost 300,000 edles, he traveled and visit 36 countries. that is important. i think it is important for the secretary to show his face, but at the same time, he is having to sometimes push policies, which even he does always seem to agree with. for example, in syria, the rp orting shows that secretary forwards much more leaning in terms of doing more to help moderate members of syrian's armed opposition, to combat assad. secretary kerry was one of the most eloquent advocates of using military force to respond to assad's repeated use of

chemical weapons. he was disagreeing with the chairman, the joint chief of staff general martin didn't see -- general martin dempsey. i think folks at the dempsey and the folks in the white house security council, including the president, who decided not to use any military action -- secretary kerry have a time span, has to push policy which maybe he does not 100% indoors. that is the job of the signatory -- of the secretary. i think he has done a a lot of good things. there was a moment i thought was not good, earlier this year, when he was visiting china, he said he wanted to have a "special" relationship with china. there is one country that the cial"has a "spe relationship with and that is britain. that is a term that churchill coined. we want to include china nightclub owes far beyond where that relationship is -- in that

club goes far beyond where that relationship is today. .hina has a lot to do to quote robert zoellick, we want to see china become eventually both responsible and genuinely constructive stakeholder. that is one of the worst moments tenure,n kerry's calling china a potential "special" relationship. we are a long way from that. host: you mentioned syria. government used poison gas in the attack on the previous day on the rubble compound of nabek. what is the current status of u.s. involvement in syria and what are your thoughts on it? over: during the debate the potential authorization use for military force, i was talking with a lot of intermediaries who deal with the moderate leaders of the moderate

armed opposition of syria. among the leaders, general celine idris, and the message that secretary kerry was reporting out with do not worry, we have this taken care of, we will get this authorization for use of military force through the congress, we will help you. mind you, a lot of these folks jar but wanteda to make their case. in fact, a lot of leaders from the three syrian army cannot even get visas to come here to make the case. on the other hand, there was a recently a nun who was very pro- assad. she was given a visa, and she visited arizona among other states. it makes in my view little cents why we are allowing pro-assad

but to come to the u.s., those who we give humanitarian aid, we do not allow them to come make their case and to prove to policymakers and lawmakers that they are worth supporting. moderates inthink syria, the oma -- they think the obama admin church does not care about them. they all one big problem to go away, assad regime to have these talks in geneva for some sort of peaceful resolution which may never happen or if they do happen will just stretch on for a long time. policy,nal feeling is the obama administration policy on syria has been replaced with international process, a process for a framework to get rid of chemical weapons, but we do not it really has a clear strategy for helping those on the ground. i think that is a tragedy. host: james is up next to brenda, democrat line. caller: good morning, james.

i want to say one thing -- barack obama is doing a good job, mr. kerry is doing a good job, you are doing a good job. who got us in the war? .eorge bush who is going to get us out of it? the got above. -- god above. barack obama was created by god just like you and me. it is because the skin, people hate him, they call him muslim or whatever. tv, --te some easy on somebody they hate, somebody they see on tv. i joined the army when i was 17 years old. my brother went to vietnam. i did not get to go to vietnam. they just -- they discharge me. i am 62 years old, i have been on disability for 30 years that i want to get off of it and go to work.

they put pig valves in my heart. host: james, what would you like our guest to address? what do you want to ask him? caller: i just want to ask him why they are against a black president we have in the united states? james,let me first say, i am a minority. my parents came from the philippines and came here for better opportunities. in general, i am glad to see people, regardless of their race or creed or whatever, getting more involved in politics and just to this debate. any differences i have with president obama and the administration has nothing to do with race or who he is or the his personality. personal things. they have to do with issues of substance. substantive distances -- difference is a matter of policy. that is what a debate needs to be. i'm happy to engage with folks on issues of substance, but you know, certainly -- of course

there will be people out there, i am not one of them, who do not like obama for really personal and probably wrongheaded reasons, but i try to be a constructive critic. i think the president has done some good things and he has done things i could have been done better, but that is the case with any president. host: what about a summer honey rouhani? does that change negotiations with iran, and with -- and because of him? guest: that is a good question. he has put out a velvet approach of foreign policy. netanyahu has said recently, iron fists an achieved by a velvet glove. negotiator a nuclear

, and he even bragged that he had used at the cover to advance iran's nuclear efforts. while he may be president, he is not the supreme leader. the guy who at the end of the day really controls the shots is ali khamenei. a special, chosen by very small group that khamenei had picked. i think people do, people i work with look forward to the day when people in iran have a genuine choice between alternatives politically, but they are a long way from appeared to your point, in terms of how much wiggle room hagel -- iranians havehe

two big goals. one, gets much sanction relief as they can because agents for their economy. they have anywhere from 80 billion to 100 million foreign reserves, but they can only act fraction of that. two, they have lost a lot of oil and expert revenue -- export revenue. their suffering massive inflation right now in iran. khamenei and rouhani are trying to ease the economic pain, but they're trying to get as much as possible on the nuclear program. i think they're doing a good job. iran continues -- the state department introduce a state department. by the way, hezbollah fighters are in syria helping the assad regime.

in addition, iran is also supporting hamas and other sort of anti-israeli terrorist groups that have attacked israel in the past. the idea that just because rouhani is elected that it washes away the pass is very shortsighted. if there is an opportunity there , we should move forward without any illusion. is jack from a soda, independent line, good morning, jack. -- from minnesota. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i would like to second the guy who the aussie accent complained about your guest list. you have some of the most off the map, right wing warmongers on the planet on your guest list like the guy, duncan hunter, the spawn of the older duncan hunter, who suggested that we

should drop tactical nuclear weapons on iran, another country that has not attacked us or done anything to us. fellow,the astounding lawrence kudlow, who made the absolute idiotic, that the united states has never used weapons of mass distraction. that leads me to a concrete example of where your guest list is skewed -- host: caller, just to be fair, we had represented gregory meeks on this program to talk -- representative gregory meeks on this program. so we have a wide birdie of viewpoints on this -- a wide variety of viewpoints on this topic. what do you want to ask our guest? caller: i am giving you a concrete example of your skewed guest list.

no, no, no, no. host: caller, ask the question here we cannot go through the laundry list of people that we have on a variety of viewpoints. do you have a question on our guest -- for our guest? caller: to the syrian war -- hello? host: you are on. caller: the syrian savaging with fiveawk missiles, you had people from daniel pike, peter wiener -- host: ok, thank you for your call. guest: jack, you and i disagree on a lot of foreign policy issues, but people share your view on c-span, i will not complain, they have a right to share their case. you call someone a spohn of spawn, that -- -- sort of name calling is not constructive. people who share your point of you have a right to air it.

and i am not a warmonger. i think it's a result comes -- if a result comes peaceably, we should. diplomacy is a means, not an end. riskplomacy is the end, we paving over rural problems -- r eal problems that later on can really bite us. today is the summer seven, -- is december 7, the anniversary of pearl harbor. in the years leading up to pearl harbor, there was an insistence that diplomacy would field a way to deal with the growing problem of the nazis and imperial japan. if people had been a little more shrewd and maybe been a little more willing to at least talk about the possibility that if diplomacy fails we do have a backup plan, we might have avoided a lot of this tragedy. instead, we have one of the worst surprise attacks ever, and we had a really tragic war.

but a war that ultimately shape the international system and establish the u.s. as the pillar of international stability. again, we can have debate about matters of foreign policy. when you start calling people spawn or names or labels, you not doing anything to move forward the debate -- you are really just insulting people. host: one more call from orlando, florida, republican line. caller: good morning, joe madrid i take on rents with the previous color because i find morning.an -- good issue with the previous caller because i think c-span has a good variety. back to iran, we fail to remember that they also seized a ,uge amount of western assets and of course we put the

sections in place, and now there is talk about relieving the sanctions hurt what is the status and the value of assets that were seized in iran today? if you have any idea. guest: that is a great question. something, iknow will say i do not know. i do not know the value of the assets. to my knowledge, though sorts of discussions have not been on the table, certainly in geneva. and bilaterally. my sort of guess here, and i'm happy to confirm with you if you send me a message on twitter, my guess is that any efforts -- assets that were seized during the revolution -- it will be a long time before any of that gets results. just send me a message on twitter and i will try to get you an answer. host: what if a short-term deal breakdown? what happens? guest: that is a good question. that is where a lot of people are worried. one thing congress want to see happen is if the deal breakdown is ancient chicken, which is to say the geneva plan is violated by iran, that there would be

consequences, sanction strengthening. another worry here is that they are countries, israel, saudi, very worried about iran. note the extent to which iran may have undeclared activities could we do not know. what i worry here is -- my hope is that the administration moves , clear eyes,ly that they work with congress. they may disagree on certain matters, but i think they all generally want to make sure that iran not just does not have nuclear weapons but is not have the capability to make nuclear weapons on short notice. i think the kirk-menendez approach, if it is hashed out this week, should get an up or down vote, and we should know -- make sure that lawmakers are a constructive part of this process to make sure that whatever diplomacy efforts go forward that they are done effectively, and that we actually meet our goals. zarate with the

foreign-policy initiative. if you want to check out their viewpoints on various things, there is their website. guest: thank you, sir. will have a up, we discussion about state supreme court judges. the new center for public integrity report looks at those laws and the center's kytja "washington post --kytja weir joins us. the author of "eat, drink, vote" will join us. ♪ >> i am a combat vet. i served in the navy for several years before i was medically discharged. terminal disease in

iraq, and i also crushed parts of my hands and had to have them rebuild. i am 100% disabled. i can no longer work, and my life expectancy now is down probably less than two years. my husband is my primary caregiver. i do not need anything from the va any longer. mike obligated claim took four years to adjudicate. not once did i ever present one single piece of new evidence. the entire claim was submitted fully developed in its entirety before i was even discharge from the navy. i am here not to represent my claim or my issues. my husband and i are here to make sure that this panel and that everyone that will listen to us will understand that cases like my own, and unfortunately like mrs. mcnutt's, are not isolated. i personally have dealt with at this time almost 1000 cases just in the last six months of

veterans and their spouses and children who are dealing with conflicts claims that are being denied over and over and over again or being lowballed. >> this weekend on c-span, the house veterans subcommittee hearing on dealing with the va's backlog of processing disability claims. on c-span's booktv, taking stock of the grand old party with joe scarborough. later tonight just past midnight at 12:15 a.m. american history tv, 50 years ago as a nation grieved for a loss president, lbj step from vice president to the oval office. sunday at 3:00. >> c-span -- we bring public washington directly to you, putting you in the room a congressional hearing from a white house event, briefings and offering complete gavel-to-gavel

coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span as created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now, you can watch us in hd. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now, kytja weir , from the center for public integrity, and she is joining us from that program. tell us a little but about the organization. guest: we are a nonprofit investigative news outlet heard and set up like a newspaper, we have a website, and we partner with other news outlets and they run our material as well. we are doing investigative work, looking primarily at being a watchdog of corruption in the misuse of resources. host: on the front page, it had the title of your lates

report -- a justice of secured. this one targets the state supreme court judges. what is the interest? there's a lot of attention when they run for election, is there any influence , taking campaign dollars, and we look into their personal finances to see whether not they had any kind of complex in a stock holdings, the real , real estate. these people are surely important, they make life-and- death decisions, they make multimillion dollar decisions, and they have a really important role in our system. host: are these people elected generally? guest: sometimes they are cured some are elected, the more important, and some have a combination of the deed of where they have a retention election after they have been in office. so we felt that whether or not they were elected, it is worth taking a look and seeing what is in their personal finances. you drew of the things

decisions upon with the role that federal justices have to face as far as thomas f do tell a personal one is as compared to what state justices have to say. what are some of the differences? guest: the federal rules are much more comprehensive. those judges have to fill out a pretty lengthy form, they have to detail their stock holdings, whether or not they had transactions with no stocks, they have to explain real estate that they own, gifts they receive, reimbursement for travel it take to a conference or something like that, and the state rules really very. -- vary. some states are not require any disclosures. three states, utah, my senate, and idaho. and some states are pretty -- baroque. it really varies so much. host: a judge on the federal side at some interest in what are the dollar amount, say, are they required to recuse himself

from the proceedings? guest: yes. they have one share of direct stock in a case comes before them involving neck of a, they are required to recuse themselves. but that is not a ready state level. it is largely up to the judge to decide whether they'd think they need to recuse themselves paired we ran into cases where there were judges who had up to $1 million of stock where they were rolling on cases, and one judge we talk to had at least $10,000 of stock in three companies and said this is an insignificant amount, it should not make a difference, i was able to rule on the case fairly. one other comparison as far as disclosure. for a federal judge, how easy is it to find out about the personal holdings of a federal judge? guest: the federal forms are not online, which is actually something that we talked to some experts and they said they should become it is 2013, they need to make them at as accessible as possible. you can request those forms and see them, and some states

actually do have there's online. but getting them from all the states is quite a challenge hurt is hard to find out which agenc ies have them because of available to all forms. the forms are not always say that much. host: the partisan financial disclosure rules for states supreme court judges is our subject for our guest, kytja weir of the center for public integrity. if you would like to ask a question, here is how you can do so --(202) 585-3881 for republicans, (202) 585-3880 for democrats, (202) 585-3882 for independents. tweet us your questions or comments @cspanwj, e-mail us at journal@c-span.org. we talked about some of the broad areas of the report. we have attached the report to the c-span website. if you want to go to the website , it is the justice

of secured article. let's take a call from shannon, republican from new york. good morning. caller: as usual, chipper morning. i would like to validity other side -- when is it ever been different in terms of the oversight into personal finances? i spent about 22 years of a course for -- as a court stenographer. the highest data television personality right now is judge .udy, $47 million a year not enough if you ask her. jokes aside, let's go back to what we are really obscure in here. i grew up the son of a lawyer who later became a judge, and dropped off.ler

apologies for that. 42 states and the district of columbia came -- got a failing grade of disclosure laws. 35 examples of the questionable gifts and entailment, -- and entanglements, and 14 instances where judges heard in the companies where they had stock in. how do you determine a failing grade on this type of profit? what we did is we got the form from every state and came up with a grading scorecard based on the federal standards, and then went through them and said ok, do they require them to fill out any iteration about stockholding, real estate? are they retired -- required to talk about outside income, and we went through like you would grading paper for my high school sudan go through and gave them great, and we had three reporters do this, and that we

compared our findings, and then came up with a final grade for each of the states. host: how did most of the states do greaade wise? guest: it was shockingly bad. of 43 states, only eight passed, and undead as well as the federal standards. the federal standards got an 84 on our measures. the best grade we had with a 77 in california. host: which states do the better job in these type of issues when it comes to disclosure? guest: california was by far the best. they had a really thorough forms, a lot of information, and also it system online, which makes them accessible which is great in a state like california when you have lots of people, very axis -- were easy to access the forms. maryland also did well, they have great forms. to get the forms, you have to go in person and get them. and so they got some points

offer that because we thought that was a hurdle that made it hard for people to get to the actual information. host: just to be clear come i for want to find out about my state's supreme court judge, i can go and do that, and not in an easy manner, but in a short manner as for the ability to find the information? guest: yes. we have posted all of those findings, those forms online. so now you don't have to go to annapolis and get them yourself and maryland. you can go and look on our website and see them for yourself. host: here is milton, philadelphia, pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: good morning ann thank you for taking my call. i do not know if you are familiar, but in pennsylvania we have a supreme court justice, ron castillo, and a couple of years ago, it was a controversy can scandal involving him going on trips and gifts like that. it breeds corruption. also, in pennsylvania, judges have to run for election. that means they have to go out

and solicit funds for their campaign. to me, that just breeds corruption because who are they getting this money from other than people that are going to come before their bench to have, you know, that have to come to the court? i think the system in pennsylvania needs to really be changed, and i would like to get your opinion on it. guest: thank you for the question, milton. there has been a lot of discussion about the elections and the influence that contributors may have on campaign. i know the senate -- the center for public integrity has done a lot looking at not who is just directly intervening to the campaign but also any outside groups that may run issue ads. some of the rules are little fuzzy as to whether or not that has to be reported. you could have millions of dollars funneled into some of these campaigns. there have been a lot of questions as to how fair is that and how is it affecting the judiciary. host: danny, ohio, republican line.

caller: i think what our founders form the u.s. government, they had two separate houses -- one the senate and won the congress for the congress -- that with the peoples house. that is what the states were supposed to go by. in any that the senate, which is more of a federal -- and then you have got the senate, which is more of a federal branch, and that is how we got the electoral college. as for the state legislature goes, i do not see where it is anybody's business how people or their legislatures judicial appointments and those kinds of things. we fought a civil war over this once before, you know, and i just don't think it is right. who --tion would be --

president obama when he severed -- when hed look for sat for 20 years and listen to reverend wright? guest: you know, i'm not quite sure how to answer that question. that there is a lot of variation between the states and the federal systems, and that is really one of the things that we found was that there is so much of a difference between a federal standards and the states, and the states really have so much variation between them. some of them -- the rules are state, soto the you have the separation of powers, you have the state rights. they would have a really unique form and unique standards. i could give examples of your interested. host: sure. guest: in new jersey, they asked the justices to discuss if they own any property in atlantic city. atlantic city geographically the tiny part of new jersey. i guess this came from interest

in making sure there were not corruptive influences and gambling. in north carolina, they asked for any -- if anyone who ifointed the judge gave -- the judge gave any money to that person who a point to them, which is an interesting question. you would not be that in a state where there is an election system only. wortha asks for the net of the judges. they each other own particular brand of things. as our states to, they all have unique identities. host: do judges typically answer these types of questions openly? it is hard to know, but some film out with more diligence than others, some judges go above and beyond. they are not required to say how many shares they own in a stock in some judges did. some judges say i think this is important, i will put it out there, and just as war and silver in maine -- justice

warren silver in maine was not required to disclose a much younger than a stock and he did. some judges went above and beyond. it's hard to know it's judges did not disclose everything. it is the unknown. in a lot ofpeak generalities in the sense that i have earnings say between $1000 and $20,000. i'm just throwing it out there. it is never nailed onto a specific total. at least from what i read. guest: some states do as war and totals, but a lot of them do use really broad ranges. there is a big difference and $5 million, and i think for regular people who do not have a lot of income, all of this seems pretty impressive. $10,000 ownership in a stock. i think it may not be significant to a judge who has had a long legal career and has amassed an amount of wealth, but to a regular person, this judge owns $10,000 stock is in the that could be significant.

host: catherine from virginia, democrats line. caller: first, the center for public integrity does great work. my question deals with the west virginia supreme court. the justices disclose for a little. -- and very little. they are elected to their seat. what information at a minimum should be required additionally to be disclosed to make that an easier, more informed decision for voters to make when selecting those justices? great question that you asked. i am not in a position to say what they should be required to say. our general thought is that it should be as transferred as possible, and we did think that the federal rules were a potential model that west virginia could adopt. .r other states could adopt a little bit more information

about investments and the transactions that they have, what kind of gets the -- kinds of gifts the judges receive, who are they from, what they were cured the more affirmation you have, the clearer it can be for voters like you have to make a decision. there are so are campaign finance reports that often shed a lot of light as well on who is intervening to those campaigns. those disclosure rules are but also extremely important a getting a sense of what potential influences there could be on these people as they seek office. david from conway, massachusetts. independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for doing your study and putting up the brave report for the different states here. a question in a statement. one, did you actually think that it would be anything different than what you discovered?

that would be the question. and then the statement would be -- i remember in college at doing multiple studies on different pac's and congressmen and senators, and consistently seeing a correlation between donors and how people voted. it went hand-in-hand. so again, did you really think you would see anything different? thank you. your: thank you for question. you know, i actually did expect the states to do better. the federal standards have been out there for a long time, the federal judges build these out, other elected officials have to fill out personal financial disclosure forms, but i was that the disclosures were so minimal for so many of the states, that was surprised that three states and not have them at all. they are pretty standard for elected or appointed officials

to have a disclosure form that they need to fill out. so i was personally a little bit surprised. host: what is the general rule but judges face when it comes to accepting gifts? not one general rule. it is as varied as the country is. the overarching things and most of the personal conduct is that they should not accept something for somebody who could influence them. that is easier said than done because a judge never knows who is going to come before them in next few months. there could be cases that are coming up the pipeline that they cannot anticipate. some states have really strict rules and say you cannot accept anything more than $50, but there are generally loopholes and all of those things. you can accept over $50, but you can accept a token desk item, a paperweight or something like that. i could be worth a lot more. --is hard to figure out what that could be worth a lot more

cured is hard to figure out what these things mean when there is a lot of gray area. host: what kind of gifts have been accepted? guest: we found that there was a judge in arkansas who had a $50,000 trip to italy given to her by an attorney. the year before that, she had a $12,000 trip to the caribbean given by the same attorney. we had a justice in illinois who had two country club memberships. a justice of indiana got tickets to the indy 500. we have a lot tickets, lots of conferences that they were given, hotel and board and flights out to -- which herbs to france -- we had trips to france, argentina. to charity galas, clocks, all cars of things that were reported. host: were there connections between the gift that were

received? guest: would it not find obvious case is about. some of that may be hard to see. it may be that they are doing the right thing and not excepting gets from people they should not be cured we did find one judge who had received what appears to be a ticket to a charity gala from a company that is a gold mining company, and then two months after going to aat charity gala, accepted case that is still pending in nevada involving that company. are there are a wide variety of reporting rules the states have when it comes to specifically gifts? hugelyyes, they vary from state to state. some have gift limits, as i said, and other places do not have limits, but you need to report it, and have very strict reporting standards. anything over $100 is to be reported. some states like new jersey and new york, you only have to

report a gift of it is over $1000. so there is a lot of stuff you can get that is less than $1000 that you would not see. host: do you have to report the dollar amount only or spell out exactly what the gift was? guest: it varies by state. some you'll have to say who it to you and you do not have to say what it was. some you have to say what it was but not how much it is worth. tell ifates you cannot what they got was a keychain or a cadillac. you really cannot tell. you just know somebody gave them something. to get a sense of -- is a complex or the something that matters or something that is not? host: disclosure rules for state supreme court judges. our guest, kytja weir. our next call, linda, democrats line. caller: hi. i follow your website. i'm curious if you did any co- relation work -- core relation work to campaign --

correlation work to campaign, i know you have done studies on both your some of your partner websites as well. so i was just wondering if you investigated that, are you going to investigate it, what have you seen in that area? thank you and good work. guest: thank you. thank you for the question. this time we did not focus on the campaign aspects of the thees, so this is just personal financial holdings. we did not find any obvious connections with the prison industry occurred i know a lot of either company's are involved in that. we have had other credits were we have looked at the campaign finance of these judges and the influencers of the people who are directly contribute to their campaigns and the people who are spending money outside of the orpaigns on issue ads other promotional materials. i do not know if we specifically

looked at the prison systems. that would be a potentially good one to look at. there are a lot of areas of influence that could be interesting to delve further into. host: here is bill from maryland, independent line. caller: hi. pursuit of justice, without fear or favor. every fairy is not necessarily -- i'm wondering if center for public integrity will have time to investigate relationship where there is no exchange of favor other than relationships. meeting the needs of friends. is that something that you think you might have time to look into? a great question. i wish we were able to get it that. i think that that is one of the really hard things to evaluate because you are kind of looking at how relationships -- who

scratched whose back, and certainly on a national level looking at all of the relationships is a really hard thing to do. but i think you're right -- a lot that happens. i do you a favor, you do me a favor, and there is nothing that could before running -- that could be put on a disclosure form about it. that are some instances all of us feel could be problematic, but it is hard to pinpoint. i think that would be a hard thing to get any meaningful way and understand where the complex are. host: up next, sheila, democrats line. caller: hi, ms. weir. i was wondering during her financial disclosure study, did you find a core relation of increased court judge dissipation or partnership and ownership in the prison system work production since the system had been privatized by the bush

administration? guest: another caller asked a similar question. we're not actually see anything obviously, ownership stake in the prison a lot of these states have such had disclosure rules. lot we do not know from these forms. i do not know if i could say definitively. host: you highlight a justice in california. why do you do that? guest: she is an interesting person. she had somewhere between $100,000 and $1 million in stock in wells fargo. last year, she was part of the court in turning down an appeal by a couple that accused wells fargo of predatory lending. owned her colleagues also

wells fargo stock and said, i cannot dissipate in this case. she did not. she owned up to $1 million of stock in the company. we contacted california and they said, oops! ourre going to look at standards and set up systems to make sure this does not happen again. host: did you find direct instances of stocks or gives directly related to a decision favoring holdings and gifts? did.: yes, we we had a number of cases where a judge offered an opinion on cases that favored a company that they or their spouse have stock in. we had several cases. when we'd contacted the judges, some of them inclined -- when we

contacted the judges, some of them declined to comment. they said, i thought i should be fair and rule on it. standards of their states, some of the justices were not required to recruit -- to recuse themselves. host: other ways judges are tangled up in their financial interests and holdings they have? be more complicated your financial resources are, the more competent of these things can be. one thing they can do is not have direct stock. that can be tricky. fund, that a mutual can dampen the impact. you are not buying shares in

individual companies. the judge cannot say, i will rule this way or that way. trust. option is a blind but those can also be tricky because you know what is going into it when you start the blind trust. it is hard to say that it is really blind. host: up next, florida, independent line. i am not sure i will be able to ask my question properly. when you were talking about rating and one of the better things is to have the financial closers -- disclosures put online, now there is identity theft and people taking information and using it in an inappropriate or criminal way, and i guess this is where you can -- i am not sure how to ask

that question. what are your feelings on the financial disclosure and ensuring protection in identity theft and abusing the information? concern ofow it is a a lot of the judges. there are 2 elements. financial concern for information, identity theft, phishing for information. a lot of people have vendettas about how a case went and do try to target members of the judiciary. they are concerned about their safety. fromwas something we heard the states repeatedly. if you put information out there, you can make the judges or their families vulnerable. there are states that put out a lot of information and they have

not had a ton of information -- examples of judges being ofgeted. there is a lot information about these judges on line. their own bio will list the names of their children and where their spouses work. most information on these financial disclosure forms do not list account numbers, birth bees, or things that could used to get sensitive information. it is generally saying they own stock in a company. it is hard to imagine how one could use that to commit fraud. a lot of experts say, when you are a public servant, enough to sacrifice a little bit of privacy to do the job you are doing to make sure the public has trust in the work you are doing. host: a viewer says i clerked for a judge who brought food baskets to the office at christmas. did you find anything that stringent?

guest: there are some states that say that if you receive food baskets or flowers, you need to put it in a public area so everyone can enjoy it. there are places that have strict rules. is hard to know exactly what is happening in those chambers because some of it is not disclosed. they do not report those things on the forms he cause those are relatively small gifts. from california, gary, independent line. are onto something about disclosure. the center does a good job on that. the real question is on accountability after that. a case ever come across called sturgeon versus los angeles county in california? guest: no, i did not. advise you.me

in 1988, the los angeles superior court judges got double benefits that added up to $40,000 a year. there were no moral to attorney general opinions that set that attorneyere were 2 general opinions that said that was unconstitutional. california made all of their judges state employees. los angeles county continue to pay them double benefits. none of the judges disclosed these double benefits. eventually, a case was brought that found those double benefits were unconstitutional, illegal. they should have stopped, they should have paid the money back. the judges, there were over 400 and los angeles county, that ran up to sacramento and the legislature was in an emergency session because of the budget crisis out here and should not

have been able to hear this bill. they got a special ale in that allowed that will -- a special allow that bill to be heard and they continue to get their benefits and gave retroactive immunity to all of the judges. host: thank you, caller. guest: i did not know about that case. in disclosure rules are bad some cases. they may be getting income from a law firm they used to be a partner to. one judge owned an apartment building where there were a lot of lawyers who rented offices. is that a conflict? potentially, if the lawyers come up in front of the judge. the more information that is out there, the better because the public can decide sa, -- because

the owners -- the public can say , we feel confident in their ability to make a decision. host: did you get angry reactions from this report? guest: yes, we got some. thattates felt injured they got failing grades. no one likes to get an f. one justice in south carolina said, if everyone is getting an f, what does this mean? the federal standards exist and judges are filling them out every year without a problem. it does not seem like it should be that different for a state supreme court judge to fill out the same kind of forms. host: our guest, kytja weir,

from the center for public integrity. caller: was there any correlation between elected versus appointed judges? would elected judges be required to disclose their finances? question.at i do not think so. was aot think there direct correlation. it did not seem like there was any pattern to it. personal financial disclosures are generally quite different from the campaign financial reports they fill out. it is a separate system and there are different administrators taking the form. we do not see an overlap. it would be interesting to look further at that question. host: one more call on this. marshall from illinois tom a republican line.

looked --ve you marshall from illinois, republican line. have you look closely at illinois judges? only they decide if they should recuse themselves. in the federal courts, there was a judge on the seventh circuit court of appeals who is deciding cases -- this goes back 25 years -- continental international bank where his wife's trust was held there. inno longer held the money the trust. they had liquidated. anyway andthe case decided adversely against the party that was suing on financial.

guest: it is a good question. we looked at illinois state justices. we will he looking at the federal justices and their disclosures soon. for recusal due very. sometimes, it is up to the judge to decide if they should recuse. why theyot need to say are recusing. sometimes a judge will say, i am recusing myself because i have an interest in this because my husband or wife did this or that and i do not want to cause any problems. it can be really hard for people to understand. these disclosure forms can help shed light on that. that is why they can be so important for members of the public. they give them confidence in the judiciary. they can say, i understand why

this judge is stepping aside. host: the justices on the supreme court of the united states? we looked at their net worth, what are their assets, what kind of travel have they done for their job? year. that earlier this it was interesting to see. most of the supreme court justices are millionaires or appear to be millionaires, which was a little bit surprising. host: so the next will be federal judges? when do you expect that to be out? guest: february. we have not gotten started. we have been busy with this project. we are looking at the appeals court level. there is a lot of disclosure to look through. host: you talk about the stringency of the law.

do you expect different results with what you are finding in the -- the states? more information to compare it to. the rules are so clear for federal judges. if you own one share you need to recuse ourselves. the center weir with for public integrity. researchnt to see the on the state level, the center for public integrity website is there. thank you very much. the program, should foods have a label that say it was genetically modified? our next guest will give us the latest. marion nestle, author and professor at new york university. " continues journal

after this. after war, things escalate so quickly. a moment that seems so loving be sost turn and flip and out of control. this is one of those days. and hecking to leave sees a hidden handgun. he says, i will need some money. on top of all of the other pressures, they had no money. she held the gun and he went into the roman came out with a shotgun and really doubled as he wento the room -- into the room and came out with

a shotgun and really held it on her. finkel sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q & a." >> i was tremendously grateful that god was going to give me another chance. i had had breast cancer and i have survived that. and i was confronted with addiction. my mind i was going to survive that, too. on any forprogram today at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> i got upset with the president because they covered my mental health work the first few meetings i had and then they never showed up anymore.

in the white house and met this woman who was one of the press people. , no one ever covers my meetings. she said, mental health is just not a sexy issue. we toured the country and developed legislation and past the mental health systems act of 1980. it passed through congress retirede voluntarily from the white house. the incoming presidents never implemented it. one of the greatest disappointments of my life. >> first lady rosalynn carter monday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: joining us from new york , the author ofe eat, drink, vote. looks at food topics on a variety of things. ms. nestle, thanks for joining us. guest: it is my pleasure. ast: can we start off with definition of genetically modified food, what is it? certainly. foods that have been bio engineered. they have the genes of some come foranism to desirable traits, either insect resistance or resistance to some other pesticide or growing faster or doing something that crop scientists think would be really good for producing food. topic tends to

produce a lot of heated opinions. why is that the case? gene: the idea of taking a from one organism and putting it into another is disturbing for a lot of people. they think it is hampering with nature in a way they are not comfortable with. it also has a great deal to do with the corporate control of the food supply, the way there are certain corporations, mainly that are doing these in order to produce extraordinary profits for the company. that makes some people uncomfortable, including me. host: why is that? 85% to 90%idea that of corn and sugar beets are produced from seas and stock owned by one company seems like not a good -- seeds and stock

owned by one company seems like not a good idea to me. when something goes wrong, it goes wrong big time. there is a great heel of weed resistance developing to certain of the chemicals used to control weeds with genetically modified crops. benefit,s away the one which was that you could use herbicides on genetically modified crops that were night -- were not quite as toxic as other kinds of herbicides and did not have to be applied so often. you have an idea of why farmers went to them so strongly. there are consequences that are difficult to predict. the idea that one seed stock is the basis of most of our corn supply is something we do not

think nature is going to like for very long. host: marion nestle, is there a tie between genetically modified foods and concerns about health? i am not sure about that. there are complaints that these foods have not been proven safe. i am not aware of evidence that shows they are harmful to human health. it is impossible to prove that a food is completely safe. it is easy to prove a food is if the problem it causes is acute. if a food is contaminated with e. coli, you are going to get sick from it and it is easy to prove. a food that contains that bacteria is going to make you sick. with genetically modified foods, if there is a problem, it is difficult to demonstrate. you do not know which foods they are in. it is difficult to do

epidemiology if you ask people what they have been eating. they have no idea if they have been eating genetically modified foods because they have no label. topicshat is one of the we will take up when it comes to labeling. other topics as well. , formrepublicans. democrats -- for republicans. four , for democrats and 202-585-3882 for independents. you use a lot of cartoons. why is that? guest: quite a number of them deal with genetically modified o's are souse gm

satirable. host: does the fda regulate genetically modified foods? guest: yes it does in conjunction with the environmental protection agency. in 1984, the fda made its decision to approve the production of genetically modified foods. was noted that it necessary to label genetically modified foods, but you were not going to be allowed to. i was on the committee. they did not listen to the consumer representatives. .e warned the fda at the time this is now 20 years ago. if they did not label genetically modified foods, there would be a sumer backlash

against them. the sumer's would wonder -- there would be a consumer backlash against them. amazes me it took 20 years to get to this point. host: is there more action to modify on the federal side or the state side? inst: they made the decision 1990 four. there have been a number of state initiatives and 2 elections -- they made the decision in 1994. the public voted against labeling genetically modified foods by a morality -- plurality of 57%. almost everybody i know who is interested in these questions tanks it is only a matter of time before some state initiatives actually works in the state. to label genetically modified

foods. one of the reasons the initiatives lost, it was clear to me, is that in california, the anti-labeling forces spent $47 million to defeat the measure. in washington state, it was 22 million. that is a lot of money to put defeating a labeling initiative. i never understood why they did not want them labeled in the first place. the authorn nestle, of eat, drink, vote. , fromce, you are up nevada. thatr: i just want to say genetically modified food is making me very ill. i have to pay more for the food. it is all grown, processed, and sold by the same big company. people thating off

are making the decision. i think our health is more important. it is really affecting my health. any: marion nestle, response to that? so sorry to hear that. you do have an option and that is to buy organic. are getting food is required by law not to have any genetic modification associated with it. you do have that choice. is it is more expensive than commission -- conventionally raised food. the foods are not labeled, so it is difficult to make a decision about what you are going to be buying. that is why i think the labeling initiatives are so important.

host: are their genetically modified foods americans re: -- americans are eating and they do not know it? guest: if you are eating orthing with cottonseed canola or sugar from beets in the product, the chances are high that it is genetically modified. 95% of those products come from genetically modified stock. if you need anything with those ingredients, you have to assume they have been genetically modified. meet -- whatout meats?eets -- guest: we do not have any genetically modified meats.

the argument is that animals that eat genetically will be digesting them. animal finishes digesting them, there was not be much left of the original genome . the organic rules require that or meat that is labeled organic -- those animals had to be fed on crops that were raised without genetic modification. greg,indianapolis, democrats' line. guest: i was calling because with all of this genetically modified stuff going on, the food tastes nasty. i do not eat at mcdonald's anymore or burger king. none of the food tastes right.

they had a science project to tell me how many people have food -- ieating good still eat chitlins. was 13.d smoking when i what is this stuff going on for? it is not making people live longer. it is making people live longer. the lifespan span in the united states is going up. sure what genetic modification has to do with that. if you are eating genetically modified foods, if you are eating foods from the supermarket, just from the produce section, the chances are you are not eating anything that is genetically modified. there is a long list of foods that are not genetically

modified. the only ones that i know about for short that are available are the genetically out of five papaya from hawaii -- the only ones that i know about for sure that are available are the genetically modified papaya from hawaii. if you bought them from stateside supermarkets, they llyl come from genetica modified varieties. i have been told there are some squash that come from genetically modified varieties. the percentages, i have been told, are not very great. i would like to know if the tomatoes, potatoes, squash, and fruit available in supermarkets are genetically modified. i would like to know. close today what about milk --

host: what about milk? the genetic modification that comes in milk is bovine growth hormones. it was the first product that was approved by the fda. there are farmers that are using it. most farmers are not. that, are concerned about you buy organic milk, which will not have it in it. go to a bottled milk and it says on the label genetically i've as it stands today? it -- genetically modified as it stands today? guest: it would not say that. it might say gmo-free.

, i would likestle to ask you a question about gmo's and microwave food. i was wondering how radiating a genetically modified organism is affected and have you done any studies on that? thank you. have not. my understanding of the studies on microwaving is that all it is doing is making the molecules move faster. it is making them move fast enough so that it generates heat. anys not changing them in substantial way. it is not like x-rays. whether the food has genes from genetically modified organisms or not should not make any difference. microwavingre that is harmful. i have not heard any problems with it. i have missed something.

if i have, please let me know about it. have weighedoups in on the topic of genetically modified food. are -- there are underway and these efforts are not driven by evidence that gmo foods are dangerous. guest: that is a safety issue. it is hard to talk about genetically modified foods because there are 2 classes of issues. there is the safety issue on one side where you count the number of people who get sick, the number of people who are hospitalized in the number of people who died as a result of eating the food. with respect to gl model --

gmo's, there are none. there are many studies going back decades that explain what it is that the public is afraid of in food and other areas. anything that is foreign or unknown that is technological ,hat is not under your control that is done without you having any input into it is something that is going to make people really afraid of it. the issues that make people worried about these things often do not have anything to do with science. just because they do not have anything to do with science doesn't mean they should be dismissed out of hand. you would not dismiss religion out of hand.

religion has nothing to do with science, but it is something people believe very deeply. you have scientists arguing that the foods are safe and acceptable. on the other hand, you have people arguing on other grounds that even if the foods are safe -- and they are not willing to accept that they are -- but even if the foods are safe, they are not acceptable on other grounds. these two points of view go past each other with no meeting of the minds whatsoever. the academy was giving a vote to science-based look into genetically modified foods to say they are ok. other people would argue differently. would think labeling solve a lot of these problems than they should have been labeled from the beginning. let me say one other thing about that.

the first company that was going to develop a genetically modified food was working on a gmo tomato. i have in my files at nyu copies of the label they intended to use on those products. a great big tomato with genetic modifications was right on the front saying this is the pride of california technology. for agesorked on this amethyst tomato that is going to taste better, -- for ages, this tomato that is going to taste better. we have worked on this for ages. werewas going -- they going to claim this on every box of those tomatoes. when my central bought the company, they killed that. -- when mann chantelle -- monsanto bought the company,

they killed that host: she is marion nestle, the author of eat, drink, vote. caller: i was wondering if there were different standards in europe for genetically modified foods than there are in the u.s. 4 years.ver there for crisp.its were not as they like them more right than we do. -- meets were not-- meats plump.ere not as are there different standards here than there for genetically modified foods? foods you none of the mentioned are necessarily genetically modified.

i have noticed in european supermarkets that the country of origin is labeled quite clearly so you can tell where they come from. it says so right on the package. there is a lot of non-gmo labeling. mcdonald's in great britain says it does not use genetically modified foods in its stores. it is genetically modified, it is required to be labeled. she's --els from her that says made from genetically modified soy, corn, and sugar. people can buy it. they have a choice of whether they want to buy it or not. i assume the candy bars are selling because i bought one. or somebody bought one and sent

me the entire candy bar and the label and i have it in my office. s have not affected how you eat? guest: me, personally? host: yes. guest: how would i be able to make a choice. they are not labeled. if i wanted to avoid to medically modified foods, i would have to eat organic and -- if i wanted to avoid genetically modified foods, i would have to eat organic and buy organic. other kinds of production values that are think are important. me.s not an issue for in the supermarket when i am by , most ofd vegetables them are not genetically

modified. the only one i know about is the papaya from hawaii. they are perfectly acceptable to buy. without labeling, you cannot make a choice. from ohio,is dave democrats' line. caller: i heard on the news that the government is required that wherere supposed to label the animals were raised and where the crops are growing. why are they doing this? you are referring to country of origin labeling, which went into effect, finally, a couple of years ago. that is supposed to tell you the food was produced in so that if you want

to buy american, you will know which foods were produced in america or which foods were produced elsewhere or if you care how far a food was shipped to get to you and you are worried about the effects of greenhouse gases that traveling thousands of miles causes, you would be able to make a choice. there are some problems with the rules. there is a lot of pressure to get rid of them. i think it is fun to know where food comes from. i like to know that apples come from new zealand. why are we buying apples that come from new zealand? we have plenty of apples in america. morning, professor. i was wondering about the genetically modified wheat. , like myself, are now having issues with gluten.

i do not have cilia disease, let disease,de a -- celiac but it has made a difference in my life. is it being studied by the government or the government -- or by the industry that owns the seed. any information would be helpful. reallyyou raise interesting points. there is no genetically modified wheat on the market. it is being produced and test clots --plots. if you are -- it is being produced in test plots. if you are buying wheat, it is not genetically modified wheat. market.t on the

any correlation you are trying to do between luden -- gluten intolerant -- and tolerance and genetically modified wheat does not really work because there is ,o genetically modified wheat at least not enough to be responsible for the large number of cases of gluten intolerance we are seeing in the country. you raise another question that has been on my mind. food research. there is a difference in the results of research by companies invested in the outcome of that research and companies that are independently funded. what researchers have observed is that if food companies are

sponsoring research, the results of that research almost invariably comes out directly in their interest. if independent groups are funding the research, the results could be next. if you see an industry-sponsored that, the chances are 95% it will get exactly the results it paid for. host: that was connecticut. this is james in north carolina, republican line. what we are talking about here is scientists and doc andn farmers -- doctors farmers coming up with ways to provide us food. ethanol is a derivative of corn and is put in our gas tanks and is ruining our gas tanks and causing the rest of food to go

up all over the world. we are just coming up with better methods of doing things. the close you are wearing are orferent than they were 10 15 or 1000 years ago. are you going to be arguing that we cannot do things with our close because they are killing -- with our clothing because they are killing us. i cannot see the difference in the questions between the republican, independent, or democratic line. you are going to have to explain to me the difference. the original purpose of genetic modification is to be able to produce more efficiently and more cheaply. one of the results of what is

happening is that a lot of it is ethanol.d for it raise the price of food worldwide, which has caused hunger andoblems in countries that do not have very high incomes. it seems like a really bad idea to me in a world in which there are almost a billion people who do not have enough food to eat every day. the idea that we are growing food to feed automobiles makes no sense whatsoever. i completely agree with you on that. whether genetic modification is necessary to produce better -- isis an arguable arguable. standard crops work well. that is a point of debate. it is one that the industry uses.

host: linda from texas, democrats' line. caller: hello. i keep hearing that people are living longer. i see the generation from world ii are the ones living longer. my father-in-law is 91 years old and his wife is 89. these people are in their middle and late 90's. they did not eat genetically modified foods. they did not eat foods with reservists or trans fats. i am 67. generation, i think they are going to start dying sooner.

guest: i do not think it is genetic modification that is doing that. trans fats were in margarine and margarine was pushed very hard during the second world war and afterwards. what is making the difference is eating too much and gaining weight as a result of that. the younger generation is so much heavier than people were people now are 20-30 pounds heavier than they were. that is what seems to be causing the problem. if that has anything to do with genetic modification, i am not sure it does. makesa viewer on twitter this statement. the issue should be what genetic material is introduced and not how that introduction is accomplished.

guest: that is a good point. if you are introducing genes that have unexpected consequences, that could cause harm. it can be difficult to demonstrate that. if you think about it. if the industry is doing studies, there will be industry funded studies. you would expect those to produce results that are beneficial to the industry whether they are our independent studies looking at these things, i am not sure. i have seen some. it is difficult to track them unless you are extremely sophisticated about the molecular biology involved. i was trained in molecular biology, but i find the science difficult to understand. host: tony is some massachusetts and he is on our independent

line. caller: i am calling to agree with professor nestle. we should be labeling foods that are genetically modified. we should be labeling them so that i and many other people can make a choice. the choice i am making is the choice of what food chain to support or what philosophy i want to support. do i want to support a monsanto operation or do i want to see a more diversified source of foods out there? issue and atical philosophical issue. i want to see what the foods are so that i and many other people can make a choice. you.you -- thank for stating you that so eloquently. i also think it is a matter of philosophy.

is a food system that has a great deal of diversity in it and i want small farms as well as large fonts. i want to see a lot of locally, organically grown food and much more focus on sustainability. system, and food much more diverse and competition are, a different one, has a much better chance of being sustainable in the long run. ander for climate, people, the environment. thank you for saying that. about your time in the 1990s talking about this issue on the federal level. approval from big food companies and to what extent are they talking about genetically modified food or whatever the issue? guest: of course there are.

the producers of genetically modified foods are rather floored by what is going on. there is an enormous grassroots movement to try to get a foods labeled. labeled.should be people want them labeled. in the early 1990s, it was people obvious that wanted these foods labeled. the industry was totally opposed to it and is still opposed to it. the examples in europe in which foods are labeled genetically modified, people do not care about the issue and they still buy them. if the industry is in trouble so muchuse there is grassroots opposition to what it is doing, i think the industry brought it on itself by not being transparent in the first place. transparency would have taken it a long way.

there would have been people in the 1890s who would have refused to buy genetically modified foods. by this time, there would have been 20 years of foods that have thatlabeled i am shocked the industry is putting in the kind of money it is. we are talking about tens of millions of dollars to defeat labeling initiatives. if every state had a labeling initiative, every state would be spending millions of dollars. at some point they are going to want to stop doing that. that is why there is a new industry initiative for voluntary labeling. i would rather see regulation. host: you talked about surveys. thoughthe people genetically modified foods should be labeled. 38% were able -- willing to eat genetically modified meat and

35% were willing to eat modified fish. guest: reef fish issue is an interesting one. the fda has been sitting on a decision to approve genetically modified fish for several years now. saw something from the doional fish growers saying, not make this announcement and ruin our christmas. carrie is updiana, next, republican line. caller: i have 2 things. when is the fda going to start regulating foods that come into the country, especially when it comes out of the country and be tested like meat is. of people in the country

are eating modified fish, it is only because that is the only thing out there. itare only buying it because is the only thing there to eat because we are supposed to consume a certain amount of fish in our diet. the comment i wanted to make is about the wheat. had a show six months ago where there was a man, a doctor who came on the show and spoke of a man named norman who did genetically modified wheat. he did it with the good intention of trying to feed the world. it is backfiring because of it being genetically altered. diabetes.ing he had his first case on the show ever recorded of a woman .ho went gluten-free she is now cured of diabetes

type 2. guest: your questions raise a number of issues. i overall take on it is that one of the reasons for not labeling isetically modified foods that it confuses people about what is in the food supply and makes people very suspicious of the food supply. we have this enormously complicated regulatory system in this country. and poultry. meat the fda has nothing to do with meat and poultry. there is no genetically modified fish on the market at the moment. the usda has never approved any genetically modified fish. those foods are ok. but how would you know if a are not labeled?

thank you so much for raising all of those issues and making that point. from new york, democrats' line. caller: i am a new york city resident. we were embroiled in this high sodaose corn syrup drinking by our young people. while in ireland with our two grandchildren years ago, i noticed a can of coke i was drinking from. i looked at the label and found highit had sugar in it, no fructose corn syrup. do the europeans know something that we do not know? the difference between the high fructose corn syrup and sucrose from a biochemical standpoint, there is no difference. high fructose corn syrup is

fructose and glucose roughly half and half. is fructose and glucose. the main difference is the price. the price of high fructose corn syrup in the united states, historically, has been much lower than the price of tabled sugar. the soda companies switched to high fructose corn syrup in the 1980s. corn is being grown for ethanol. the price of high fructose corn syrup has gone up. highifferential between fructose corn syrup and sucrose is so small that companies have gone back to using sucrose. you will start seeing that in the united states as well. companies are saying they are high fructose corn syrup free because it has gotten a bad

name. from a biochemical standpoint, they are pretty much the same. host: marion nestle is a professor at new york university and the author of eat, drink, vote. coming up on the program tomorrow, the latest on the health-care law and the administration's efforts to reintroduce it. talk about the new unemployment numbers that came out yesterday. then a discussion about china. especially on long the lines that the vice president is taking a trip. see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> in a few moments, the veteran affairs department. after that, remarks by eric shin issuesout some of the better and stays returning from active duty. secretary of state john kerry will give the keynote address today at an event hosted by the brookings institution for middle east policy. they started this in two thousand three and includes american and israeli leaders from government, business and society. you can watch his remarks like that work like p.m.